With comparison between thought of Laotzu and that of Post-mordmism, we have investigated the differences and of similarities lying on these two thoughts.
Both of these two side take a critical stance on ‘chih(知:knowledge/ related with ‘yu(욕: desire)’. They think that this secular chih in the real world, resulting from reason and desire, has negative effects. However, these two thoughts show differences on the point of view toward desire; Laotzu insists on ‘wu wei(無爲:the action confirm with taoist’s version of nature)’, while post-modernist on the resurrection of desire.
On the other hand, these two thoughts have similarity on the argument how to understand th truth. Both of them refuse to accept the truth, which human beings are seeking after in the real world.
If we take views on the side of Laotzu, ‘Tao(道:taoist’s version of providence)’can be revealed as an absolute truth. Post-modernists, however, take a negative attitude toward even this ‘tao’ of absolute truth. As we may infer, post-modernist’s have every possible ground that even this 'tao' of absolute truth may have another limits.
But we must point out that ‘tao’ can not be perceived by ‘chih’, which has secular and analytic characteristics. 'Tao' is the truth that surpassing the degree of differentiation and differences. Therefore, what counts more is how to realize it. This ‘tao’ can be achieved only through ‘wu wei’ and insight. This pont makes difference from view of post-modernist's. They insist that there lie possibility on the way of perception through “horizon of comprehension”.
When we make an argument about Asian and Western thoughts, it is highly recommended to get it out open the similarities and the differences lying on them, in spite of the limits resulting from conceptual diversity, I am sure these kinds of studies will bring us the steady breakdown for the wall of different way of thinking and interpreting the world.